(1.) THE petitioner is dissatisfied with the award made by the Labour Court dated 6-9-2005 (Annexure P-25) by virtue of which his claim has been dismissed. According to the petitioner-workman he was initially appointed by respondent No. 2-management as a "trainee" vide order dated 1-10-1979. He gained promotions from time to time. His services were confirmed as Skilled-B w. e. f. 1-10-1989. On 9-12-1993 he was suspended and his services were terminated on 17-1-1995. To challenge the action of the management of terminating his services, he raised an industrial dispute under section 10 (1) (d)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the act ). The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The claim of the workman was resisted "by the management by filing a detailed written statement. The stand was that on account of grave misconduct of using abusive language and threatening the manager, the petitioner was chargesheeted on 9-12-1993. Despite various communications and publication, the workman did not join the enquiry proceedings, as such, proceedings were carried out ex-parte, in a legal manner. The charges against the workman were held to be proved by the enquiry officer. Resultantly, in the interest of discipline in the organisation, his services were terminated.
(2.) THE Labour Court vide the impugned award held the termination of the services of the workman as fair and proper and dismissed his claim. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner-workman in the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is that no legal and proper enquiry was held against him prior to terminating his service. The charge-sheet was served upon him subsequently after the appointment of enquiry officer, as such, all the enquiry proceedings are liable to be vitiated. No opportunity of being heard was afforded to him. The Labour Court has erred in not applying the provisions of section 11a of the Act.